The cost/benefeit of purchasing games

[Qvar]

Games cost money, most of the time. Unless you have spare resources, or you are totally hyped by it, "how much does this game cost?" will be an important part of the cognitive process leading you to either buy the game or not.

Browsing a forum (say, Steam forums) for recommendations on what to do when there's a sale for that game, will most likely lead you to a couple of message like "For X ?, totally worth it, grab it while you can".

This statement reflects the obvious conclusion that there's a relationship between "how much does it cost?" and "how valuable is it?". As any other product in our lifes, depending on how "good" it is, we will be willing to pay more or not.

So I want to ask you: What kind of parameters do you use to analyze if a game is worth your money or not?

In my case, I've come to the conclusion that all boils down to two questions:

1. Does it have enough chance sof being enjoyable enough? To this end, I check the forum posts and see if they generally praise or not the game, then check users metascore. If it's generally well-received and has a 75+, proceed to question 2.

2. Check how long it is. Somethimes I take a look at http://www.howlongtobeat.com/ but usually I just try to figure it out from people talking about the game. They tend to mention it along the way.

After I have the current price and the duration, it's all about if I can extract 5 hours of game from every euro invested. This way, Fallout New Vegas is about to pay itself out after the 40 hours I've put into it this far (still playing), for a price of 8 euros.

Even more so Chivalry: Medieval Warfare, with 80 hours. Funnily enough I'm frustrated with the direction this game took, but I can't complain since I've extracted way more entertainment from it than what I paid for.

Skyrim was a no-brainer, 200 hours for 20 euros is half the price I could have paid for it.

Just Cause 2 was a total fail tho, since I didn't like the game, spending about 4 euros and only 8 hours played, making it a lose of more than half the money. And so on.

Are you conscious of how do you decide what to buy?

 

[aozgolo]

I think it largely depends first obviously on whether or not I'll play it, and secondly on the length of time I can play it, it either has to have a long campaign or LOTS of replay value. For me replay value means being able to play through a game and have a totally unique experience each time, not just choose a different option at a key moment for a different ending.

One of the games I remember being the most disappointed about was "Gun" for the PS2. It wasn't a bad game, far from it, I played a demo of it then went out and bought it. The very next day I owned it I had beaten the game with 100% completion, it was just so fast and there was so little content in what was otherwise a well constructed game. I enjoyed the game but I always felt that I had lost value for having bought it and beaten it so quickly and it largely was devoid of replay value.


Of course I also buy big open world sandbox RPGs from time to time like Two Worlds II or Arcania and simply never play them at all.

 

[Maximum Bert]

There is no particular fixed criteria I use I just look at it gather as much data about it as I can and think for X amount of money will it provide me with a satisfying experience in justification to the amount I spend.

Length used to be important to me but now I really dont care although if a game is really short I would most likely expect to pay less but then again quality over quantity is always better although I would like both and expect it to some extent especially of non indie games.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I don't particularly have a fixed criteria as the monetary cost of games is trivial for me. I'm more concerned if my time is well spent. That's the reason, for example, that I don't like Dark Souls - it doesn't respect my time.

 

[Miss G.]

Cost isn't usually a factor in my purchasing decision. It usually comes down to these criteria:

1. Is it a JRPG or at least a console exclusive that as grabbed my attention in a good way? If yes, move to #2.

2. Is it in 3rd person? If yes, move to #3

3. Is it turn-based or at least a gameplay style I can handle? If yes, move to #4.

4. Is the story interesting if it has one at all? If yes, move to #5.

5. Is it easily available to me for purchase and/or $60USD or below? If yes, sold.

*Slight variant on criteria:

1. Is it an entry in a franchise I love or recommended by someone I trust if I'm unfamiliar with the IP? If yes, just

 

[Saelune]

Well, on Steam I almost never buy a game not on sale...period. But that's why I have my wishlist. Ofcourse Im more flexible when they are.

Otherwise it depends on how sure I am I will like it. Games in a series I know I like are more likely to be bought at lesser sales. Games I am unsure of require more saving. However since I have extremely varied gaming tastes, its hard to give specific parameters...but I love RPG elements in well...anything.

 

[FPLOON]

criteria snip

My criteria in a nutshell...

OT: Money is of no issue...

Mostly, if it's a game I know I'm going to enjoy one way or another, then I will do my damnest to meet the demands of its outlandish reasonable pricing... for sure... Other than that, Miss G. has "my criteria" down to a T on everything else...

 

[Clowndoe]

There's no kind of mathematical or "rational" equation for deciding if a game is worth purchasing or is worth having purchased. I have nothing like your 5-to-1 money/hour ratio, and I have very few obvious things that will make me instantly pass-up a game. If I pay 10$ for a game that I played for 5-10 hours, that's more than good enough for me, if it was reasonably enjoyable. Then again, I have the good fortune of having a little money to toss around now and again.

 

[krazykidd]

Mine is easy . If it's a Jrpg, i'll buy it .

If it's not a jrpg. 2$ per hour of gameplay. So if it's a hack and slash game ( like God of war )that's 10 hours long , i'll only pay 20$. If it's an FPS that's 15 hours long ( bioshock infinite) i'll pay 30$. And so on and so forth.

 

[Shymer]

It costs me £50 to take my three boys to the cinema to watch a 2 hour movie. Anything cheaper than that that is likely to occupy me and them for longer than a film is fair enough. Then again, I have much more disposable income now and so I am more likely to take a chance with games than I ever have been before.

 

[Teoes]

I don't have set criteria but I do try and weigh up how much I want the game vs. how much I'd be willing to spend on it.

More recently though I've had to consider some more outside factors, i.e. would I feel like I'm "wasting" money on a game when I should be saving up for a deposit on a house (even more recently, things to fix/put into the house like a dishwasher, better windows, tools, materials to redecorate, etc.); do I feel like I'll be able to give the game the time it requires and I'd want to invest? I have less time for gaming these days. Finally, do I really need to buy yet another game when I already have 80-odd backlogged games to get through at some point?

I've not bought a game in a good while.

 

[Battenberg]

After I have the current price and the duration, it's all about if I can extract 5 hours of game from every euro invested. This way, Fallout New Vegas is about to pay itself out after the 40 hours I've put into it this far (still playing), for a price of 8 euros.

Five hours per Euro seems a little ott, what about games which only have an hour or two of playtime for a playthrough? For example 'The Stanley Parable' can, according to HLTB, be finished in under 5 mins, taking as long as 3 hours for a completionist playthrough. By you logic that makes it worth 0.60 which I don't see happening and by most accounts it's a very good game, a game which you would never get to play based on your criteria.

OT: For me quality/ personal interest overrides all other considerations. As a rule I don't get new releases (mainly because I can't afford to) and by the time I get a game it will typically be 1 year+ old and 1/2 to 1/4 of its original price so that's price sorted right there. Then I have a quick look at metascores and reviews from a few choice journalists to make sure the game isn't total garbage and a look at a gameplay trailer to see if it looks like my kind of game then I buy it (or wait for it to go on sale if it's still too expensive). If it's a game/ franchise I already know I want to play (even if it's just to see what the fuss is about) then I just keep an eye on the price until it's affordable.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well it's a very strange and convoluted system of preferences for me, but if I try to summarize:
Is it my kind of game + overall quality + quality of an individual experience + is it a decent length = X limit at which I'll buy.

So the hours per buck thing just doesn't work for me, I've clocked hundreds of hours on games like Minecraft but I would never advise someone to spend more then 10 bucks on it, meanwhile something real short like Portal I will gladly say 20 even now.
And I make no illusions about MP games, yes some matches turn out real great but the majority of that experience is dealing with clueless people with makes the package real low quality and let's not forget you do grind the same 10 maps hours on end... thus the combined value is rather low.

 

[gorfias]

It depends upon:

Is it super-great: These tend to be long enough to justify expense. I've never paid more than $60 for anything. Bioshock Infinite was $50 new for PC. It was one of the shorter great games I've ever played, yet, I felt I got my money
s worth. I may play it yet again. Glad it is NOT just a rental.

Is it super-cheap: I bought a PC version of a Red Faction game for PC Download even though I already had a version fo PS3. The Download was, like, a buck. Convenient to have it on hand for the PC.

and most importantly:....

How much do my kids beg for it till I groan, say, "OK" and buy it even if I don't really want it? Spent $60 on GTAV for PS3 and I can't hit the broad side of a barn with its shooting scheme. With my eyes, how am I supposed to timely find the little white recticle?!?!?!? But my boy loves it.

 

[Suave Charlie]

It costs me £50 to take my three boys to the cinema to watch a 2 hour movie. Anything cheaper than that that is likely to occupy me and them for longer than a film is fair enough. Then again, I have much more disposable income now and so I am more likely to take a chance with games than I ever have been before.

Seriously? I mean, I'm doing quite well for myself now but I'm still loathe to pay full cinema prices.
Conversely I gifted my friend the stanley parable just because I thought he should play it.

 

[Pink Gregory]

If I want to play it now, I'll buy it for a reasonable price, which usually has an upper limit of £20, with a few exceptions.

If I don't particularly feel like I need it right this second, I wait for a sale or a reasonably-priced (up to and including £20)used copy.

That's pretty much the only deciding factor.

 

[Qvar]

I think it largely depends first obviously on whether or not I'll play it, and secondly on the length of time I can play it, it either has to have a long campaign or LOTS of replay value. For me replay value means being able to play through a game and have a totally unique experience each time, not just choose a different option at a key moment for a different ending.

So I understand that you don't buy short yet cheap games. How long would it be necessary to satisfy you? Would you consider Portal too short?

I don't particularly have a fixed criteria as the monetary cost of games is trivial for me. I'm more concerned if my time is well spent. That's the reason, for example, that I don't like Dark Souls - it doesn't respect my time.

Could you elaborate please? I'm considering purchasing Dark Souls, but I don't get what do you mean by the game not respecting your time.

There's no kind of mathematical or "rational" equation for deciding if a game is worth purchasing or is worth having purchased. I have nothing like your 5-to-1 money/hour ratio, and I have very few obvious things that will make me instantly pass-up a game. If I pay 10$ for a game that I played for 5-10 hours, that's more than good enough for me, if it was reasonably enjoyable. Then again, I have the good fortune of having a little money to toss around now and again.

Well there are exceptions, of course. I gladly paid 10 or 20 euros for Portal 2 (the machine I had before that just couldn't move the game, so the game was on sale already when I was able to purchase it) even if I fully knew that it would last about 10 or 20 hours. There are some games you just can pass.
Then I made the mistake with Dead Space 3, hah.

Finally, do I really need to buy yet another game when I already have 80-odd backlogged games to get through at some point?

Definitely yes I have 180 games or so only in my Steam library but... Who can say no to humblebundle?

Five hours per Euro seems a little ott, what about games which only have an hour or two of playtime for a playthrough? For example 'The Stanley Parable' can, according to HLTB, be finished in under 5 mins, taking as long as 3 hours for a completionist playthrough. By you logic that makes it worth 0.60 which I don't see happening and by most accounts it's a very good game, a game which you would never get to play based on your criteria.

It's not set on stone of course. I may pay more for games I KNOW that I will like (ones with darkness and angst involved, most likely), or ones that are just so cheap, it doesn't really matter they are so short. Also, I'm a completionist freak. My calculations are always done according to how long it would take to have every single piece of the 100 whatevers, as long as I like the game. I guess you could say the formula is not geometric.

By the way, I'm not really an expert on such short-independent games, so I get pretty much all of the ones I have from humblebundles, where... Yes, they efectively cost me 1? aprox (yes I'm cheap, shame on me).

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I don't particularly have a fixed criteria as the monetary cost of games is trivial for me. I'm more concerned if my time is well spent. That's the reason, for example, that I don't like Dark Souls - it doesn't respect my time.

Could you elaborate please? I'm considering purchasing Dark Souls, but I don't get what do you mean by the game not respecting your time.

Quite simply, the game will easily kill you arbitrarily - an event that can make you lose all souls you currently carry (which represent both currency and experience). It often relies on trial and error gameplay in order to get to any particular sections and it may take anywhere from a few minutes to a quarter of an hour to get back to the point where you were killed. In short, the game at it's core serves to delay your progress for as long as possible at every turn.

That isn't to say the game is difficult in the strictest sense - once you know what needs to be done in a scenario, it's relatively easy to pull off. It's simply that at any given moment you might have half a dozen options at your disposal that seem like they might work but half of them get you killed instantly and the other two get you hurt badly enough that you're forced to backtrack to a bonfire and try again anyhow.